Remove ppc32 support

[Al Dunsmuir]

Hello Josh,

On Friday, May 16, 2014, 2:50:15 PM, you wrote:

> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Al Dunsmuir <al.dunsmuir at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Friday, May 16, 2014, 12:22:26 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> The powerpc secondary arch team has disabled all ppc32 builds in koji for
>>> F21 and beyond:
>>
>>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ppc/2014-May/002801.html
>>
>>> There's little point in keeping support for ppc32 support in the kernel
>>> package when it will never be built.  This also removes the -smp variant
>>> and with_smp* support, as that was only used on ppc32.
>>
>> Josh,
>>
>> In  the  fedora-ppc list you will also find that there are a number of
>> us  who  are  attempting to keep support for ppc32 active, and restore
>> the ability to create new installations.

> Yes.  I've commented on the thread.

>> This may take the form of a remix - it has been suggested that we talk
>> to  Fesco,  this this seems to set a precedent on how x84 32-bit might
>> be treated in the future.

> I doubt that.  i686 will most like go to a secondary arch status like
> ppc64 is today.  ppc32 has been demoted even further down than
> secondary arch, as the secondary arch team that was working on it no
> longer wishes to do so.

> In essence, ppc32 is now analogous to sparc and ia64 in Fedora.

I  know  someone  who has sparc, alpha hardware.  I'm not sure if they
have an ia64 box taking up space in a closet somewhere.

A  core advantage for ppc32 is that one can still readily get hardware
for a quite reasonable price locally or on EBay.

Because  of branding, I would certainly prefer that ppc32 remain under
the  Fedora  umbrella  as  a  seconday-secondary tertiary architecture
rather than be forced to become a remix.

>> We  have no intention of preventing a successful Fedora 21 release for
>> ppc64.  A  number of folks on the ppc64 team agree it is a useful goal
>> (largely  those  with nostalgic feelings for vintage hardware). Others
>> are more of the "take it out behind the barn and shoot it" category.
>>
>> Making  it  so  that ppc32 does not get built by default is one thing,

> Actually, it's a very very big thing.  Those wishing to keep it alive
> now need to come up with their own build hardware and build enviroment
> setup.  This is by far the largest hurdle, and if it isn't done
> quickly the ppc32 secondary-secondary (thirdary?) arch will quickly
> fall behind and into disrepair.

I  hope  that we can prevent things from becoming as hopeless as sparc
and  ia64.   Being a viable separate secondary arch for older hardware
is certainly a better fate than a dead tertiary arch.

Some  folks  have  volunteered  to  host the builds, and provide build
hardware. We'll see how that works out. If we do have to build outside
the Fedora systems, there are going to be security considerations.

> As someone that actually was crazy enough to do this kind of thing
> when ppc/ppc64 was originally dropped, I would highly recommend you
> get on it immediately.

Trying.   I  likely spent too much time gathering a representative mix
of hardware.  Lesson learned.

>> but  removing  the  ability to build ppc32 at all seems excessive, and
>> certainly premature given the current situation.

> Which is why I sent it as a patch instead of simply committed it.
> Discussion is requested.  At a minimum though, I really would like to
> drop the -smp flavor because it was of very limited use even when ppc
> was a primary arch and it adds the most complication to the spec.

Thanks for clarifying that.

The  problem  with  dropping smp is that I and other have smp hardware
that  we  would  like  to  use.  That is also likely the hardware that
would  best  be  used  for builds, should "build native" and lack of a
ppc32 cross compiler & binutils mean we can's use a ppc64 build host.

Al